<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1993 (6) TMI 244 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158565</link>
    <description>An exemption notification for newly set up small-scale industrial units was construed strictly at the eligibility stage, and use of the trade mark or brand name of an existing industrial unit attracted the express disqualification. The tribunal stated that no additional requirement could be read into the embargo, such as proof that the existing unit had previously enjoyed tax holiday. It also noted that delay in disposing of an eligibility-certificate application did not confer relief where a vital eligibility condition was not satisfied, especially when the delay was not shown to be inordinate or solely attributable to the respondents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:22:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334031" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (6) TMI 244 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158565</link>
      <description>An exemption notification for newly set up small-scale industrial units was construed strictly at the eligibility stage, and use of the trade mark or brand name of an existing industrial unit attracted the express disqualification. The tribunal stated that no additional requirement could be read into the embargo, such as proof that the existing unit had previously enjoyed tax holiday. It also noted that delay in disposing of an eligibility-certificate application did not confer relief where a vital eligibility condition was not satisfied, especially when the delay was not shown to be inordinate or solely attributable to the respondents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158565</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>